Real Estate Crash thread

[jackstraw]

I think my point is that this legislation enables building of ADUs which -may- provide some more affordable housing (especially if they aren’t allowed to be used as STRs), and it doesn’t preclude any of the other housing solutions being advocated for, as far as I can tell. So what’s the issue?

My friend lives in SF right off Haight. He has an ADU and it's rented as an LTR usually to USF students. A lot of people don't want to deal with STR bs.

[Core Shot]

Yeah. But if you allow ADU or other apartment development it should be LTR.
All I’m saying is they can’t go STR or condo.
Worker. Housing. It’s key.
Yeah, it will be market. And a few units might be rented year round for wealthy ski bums. But mostly. It will be market rate worker housing. And yes. There might be bunkbeds and too many people. But it’s a rental. For workers. Not for STR vacations

[Toadman]

"I'm leaving CA for CO because it is expensive, crowded, and the taxes are too high. Oh hey let's make CO like CA!"

Attachment 455556

A lot of the country is getting Californiacated.

[dunfree]

A lot of the country is getting Californiacated.

unfortunately most of the country is too fucking stupid to understand what fucked up California

[schuss]

Pretty comical that no one who disagrees with summit has made a counter to his point about building costs and the feasibility of actually housing local workers (the entire point of this topic) in the ADUs. I don’t think his argument has anything to do with NIMBYism, more like explaining why the ADU idea isn’t a realistic solution.

Why would someone go through the effort of building an ADU if they don’t plan to rent it at market value (whether LTR or STR)? Outside of special circumstances, people are not that charitable. Low income local workers can’t afford market value in “mountain towns,” that’s why you’ll see people drive into Jackson 5 days a week from places as far as Idaho Falls. I’m guessing it’s no different in any other mountain town. Oh, and don’t forget to add at least 20-25% of what normal building costs would be outside these bubble communities. So sure, the ADUs will house people, but not the target population of this discussion.

More supply generally means prices will stabilize or drop. Also, individual ADUs have a lower capital cost even if inefficient at scale. Spreading the cost out to willing homeowners is an easier pill than taxing to subsidize a worker housing project and dealing with all the bullshit lawsuits and feet dragging people will throw at it.
ADUs can be started in parallel nearly immediately.

[fastfred]

I don't understand why these high priced resort towns think they are special. Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver have super expensive cost of living, have a fuck ton of tourists, and have a fuck of STRs taking away long term rental housing. There is just as much "insatiable" demand to live in these cities. The mountain towns face the exact same issues, for the exact same reasons, that big, expensive, cities face. But the mountain towns think they know how to fix it better than the cities. They say, don't force density on us. Let us decide how much density to allow. Let us decide how much subsidized housing to build. That hasn't worked in the last 50 years. Why should I trust you that it will work in the next 50?

don't you know everyone is a ski town is a special snowflake who deserves to be coddled for their sacrifices in life

and everyone has the right to move to a ski town and live out their dream with a room that only costs 250 a month is ski in and ski out with a quick wwalk to all the bars and resturants and that room is totally rad and huge

[Danno]

I cant even imagine how many times a day you must get told facts not in evidence. Quit misrepresenting the discussion. It’s really fucking annoying.

Edit. That was for Alta if it wasn’t clear enough

I'm not even reading his posts and it was still crystal clear.

[neckdeep]

don't you know everyone is a ski town is a special snowflake who deserves to be coddled for their sacrifices in life

and everyone has the right to move to a ski town and live out their dream with a room that only costs 250 a month is ski in and ski out with a quick wwalk to all the bars and resturants and that room is totally rad and huge

Yeah, it's all about part time yoga instructors and fishing guides being coddled....

Or, maybe its about what happens when the local hospital can't keep its experienced nurses and has to pay double to replace them with a rotating staff of very, very expensive traveling nurses. Stuff like that.

[snapt]

Is this job listed anywhere? I looked on the county website but didn't see it.

Gave up and have been dividing the work at the SO.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Yeah, it's all about part time yoga instructors and fishing guides being coddled....

Unfortunately, around here at least, what you do for work doesn't matter. But even if you did, I'm not sure where you draw the line. Grocery store manager, ski patroller?

[schuss]

Yeah. But if you allow ADU or other apartment development it should be LTR.
All I’m saying is they can’t go STR or condo.
Worker. Housing. It’s key.
Yeah, it will be market. And a few units might be rented year round for wealthy ski bums. But mostly. It will be market rate worker housing. And yes. There might be bunkbeds and too many people. But it’s a rental. For workers. Not for STR vacations

I think regulating total amount in town lets the mix self-correct, as if making an ADU a STR while the main property converts to LTR is probably a net good.

[wolfelot]

What about the cases where at the time someone qualifies, but then over the course of time they have significant economic progression due to career advancement or inheritance?

[Name Redacted]

What about the cases where at the time someone qualifies, but then over the course of time they have significant economic progression due to career advancement or inheritance?

If it is a rental they get booted. Some of the employee housing for the resorts here even have a time limit.

[Foggy_Goggles]

What about the cases where at the time someone qualifies, but then over the course of time they have significant economic progression due to career advancement or inheritance?

If it's not a rental AKA Deed Restricted....happily ever after. That is a big part of my opposition.

[altasnob]

If it is a rental they get booted. Some of the employee housing for the resorts here even have a time limit.

How do they know you inherited a bunch of money? That may not even get included in your tax return. I assume it is an "honor" system where people are supposed to self report their new found riches and forgo their subsided crib.

[Name Redacted]

How do they know you inherited a bunch of money? That may not even get included in your tax return. I assume it is an "honor" system where people are supposed to self report their new found riches and forgo their subsided crib.

How would an inheritance not show up on your tax return? They probably have periodic financial disclosures. If not maybe it is honor system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Foggy_Goggles]

Everything I'm aware off is an Income Based System. Broadly speaking, inheretences are not generally taxable. There is also a gift exception. That's before you even start talking about legal work arounds. Benefit aren't disclosed either. So the $20K benefit package my wife receives wouldn't effect our qualification.

Stereotypically, many of the residents of the affordable housing around here are receiving sometype of family assistance. They've been able to hang around town working a leisure job and now they get the extra bedroom and the granite tops.

But see that, despite the messaging, that doesn't matter. The resident is the product not the consumer. The puffy coat mafia gets to keep on keepin' on and everyone else just looks the other way because we've got affordable housing.

[goldenboy]

What about the cases where at the time someone qualifies, but then over the course of time they have significant economic progression due to career advancement or inheritance?

Doesn't matter around here, you stay forever if you want.

The most recent deed restricted sale here was cash. Why they didn't spend a bit more, even if it meant taking on a loan if they have cash lying around is beyond me.

[fastfred]

Doesn't matter around here, you stay forever if you want.

The most recent deed restricted sale here was cash. Why they didn't spend a bit more, even if it meant taking on a loan if they have cash lying around is beyond me.

this

there was a big blow up cause a county commisioner and her recently not re elected husband for tressurer or something like that sold their deed restricted home for cash??? somewhere under 500k they then charged the new buyer another 30k or 40k for improvements like a shed and stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops and paint and maybe even a used laundry hamper

pretty much bushed under the rug nothing to see here

[Foggy_Goggles]

The most recent deed restricted sale here was cash. Why they didn't spend a bit more, even if it meant taking on a loan if they have cash lying around is beyond me.

Because I'm dense...they had lets say half a $mill sitting in the bank and they qualified based on income? Happen to know there employment situation?

This is basically what someone was coaching my wife on. We can sell around house, put the money in the bank, rent temporarily, buy the deed restricted and then quit the qualifying job.

This is the disconnect I see. If you understand and observe the rules, it doesn't even make sense on paper. All these hypotheticals are real. For the newest Winter Park project (rentals) you can work from home at 120% AGI which was over 100k and have a non-qualifying room mate. I know of another arrangement where the couple lives in Denver put the wife works parking for the ski area to try and qualify to get a second home.

[Mani_UT]

Unfortunately, around here at least, what you do for work doesn't matter. But even if you did, I'm not sure where you draw the line. Grocery store manager, ski patroller?

I know where I draw mine. When businesses that I can live without lobby to have tax payers subsidize the lodging for their private workforce I just stop shopping there. Eventually it will solve the need for employees or their lodging.

As an example do we need something like 100 restaurants/cafe for 8000 residents? Close half of them and lodging will be more available for truely needed workers (healthcare, education…).

[goldenboy]

Because I'm dense...they had lets say half a $mill sitting in the bank and they qualified based on income? Happen to know there employment situation?

I don't. But it makes no sense financially, IMO. It does make sense if someone wanted to work less/retire/work at a low paying job that maybe they love.

The place they bought is a tiny 1 bedroom for $260K, restricted at 3% a year. They could buy a 2 bedroom for twice that, rent the other room so a good chunk of the mortgage is taken care of, and likely sell it in 5 or 10 years or whatever for a whole lot more than the 3% they'll get on the deed restricted place.

Jeff Bezos could quit Amazon today, start washing dishes at the Secret Stash tomorrow, and buy a deed restricted place in a year. That's still a little weird...

[Foggy_Goggles]

If I could buy a tiny deed restricted property for $260k I'd do it in a heartbeat which only highlight everyone has deferent needs and goals. For me it would free up a bunch of capital and ensure I had a place forever while I pursue working less and traveling.

Put is terms of a subsidy it makes no sense to me but it obviously makes sense to someone else we wouldn't keep doing it.

[Name Redacted]

Jeff Bezos could quit Amazon today, start washing dishes at the Secret Stash tomorrow, and buy a deed restricted place in a year. That's still a little weird...

He could tip the kitchen $1000 every night for the rest of eternity.

[Percy Rideout]

Here is what I mean by insatiable demand: if you put units for sale, a local buyer is competing against a market of buys that isn't local, it is the state, the country, the planet.

For rentals, for every local worker that wants to rent a 1BR at $1700/mo, there are 3 remote workers and 3 front rangers who will pay $2300 or more to only LTR but use it on the weekends and pow days, and even more visitors who will pay $300+ per night to STR, more on the holidays. That is the market mechanics. That is why all the building up here hasn't solved the housing problem and why the local government has turned to deed restriction as the solution.

This new law doesn't allow a requirement for deed restriction to ensure housing is for local workers.

Now back to the ADU. If it takes $2000+/mo for an owner to cashflow a 1BR ADU build, guess what the ADU gets used for?

Guys, i hate to say it but Summit's argument is correct here RE: who populates ADU's at least concerning expensive mountain towns with minimal developable land left to build on.

Aspen has been doing this for longer than anybody, and they actually tried to entice property owners to build ADU's to house the local workforce all the way back in 1990.

In what is arguably the dumbest council decision ever made (yes im even thinking about the stupid hydroelectric turbine debacle) The council never required the owners to house local workers in the new ADU (although that was the clear goal of the legislation), and it did not work out as planned, at all.

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspe...gation-option/

https://records.aspen.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=5650

Counterpoint: Maybe wrestling control away from the local councils NIMBYNESS and "no growth" mindset might be a good thing while we steamroll our way to the next deep recession.

OR, forcing new ADU's to be built with local worker housing required. But as summit said, billionaires don't like living next to the unwashed ski bums. Apparently rich people were cooler in the 70's. not now.

Housing has always been a problem in this valley. The whole fucked up situation just got 10x worse when THE GREAT COVID MIGRATION happened.